...
首页> 外文期刊>Medical care >Managing the unmanaged: a case study of intra-institutional determinants of uncompensated care at healthcare institutions with differing ownership models.
【24h】

Managing the unmanaged: a case study of intra-institutional determinants of uncompensated care at healthcare institutions with differing ownership models.

机译:管理无人管理:在拥有权模式不同的医疗机构中,机构内无偿护理决定因素的案例研究。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

STUDY OBJECTIVE: This study presents a case analysis of how 3 urban medical centers with differing ownership models, within 1 metropolitan area, ration access to uncompensated care to uninsured patients. METHODS: Data was triangulated from 3 sources: hospital financial reports by service line for a fiscal year, a survey of 292 self-pay patients, and the self-pay policies and practices of clerical personnel described in a previous publication. RESULTS: Although the public, for-profit and not-for-profit institutions used different strategies for managing self-pays, there were also commonalities in the experiences indigent patients reported. The public institution provided the broadest access to the largest percentage of self-pay patients but offset the burden with the most successful prepayment and collection practices. The for-profit site obeyed federal regulations mandating emergency care but severely curtailed other services, and the not-for-profit limited assess (but not to the extent of the for-profit) and pursued collection (but not to the extent of the public). At all sites, actual practices by clerical staff often diverged from institutions' written self-pay policies. The probability of being turned away because of inability to pay ranged from 0% to 40% with front line personnel exercising considerable discretion on a case-by-case basis. CONCLUSIONS: Large institutional providers balance their particular social and legal obligations with strategies to limit access and optimize prepayment and collection. Stated policies generally do not reflect the practices of personnel. Uninsured patients are forced to navigate a capricious system that manages them as a liability rather than as a legitimate client.
机译:研究目的:这项研究提供了一个案例分析,该案例分析了在一个大城市区域内拥有所有权模式不同的三个城市医疗中心如何为无保险的患者分配无偿照料。方法:数据从以下三个方面进行了三角测量:一个服务年度的医院财务报告,对292名自费患者的调查以及以前出版物中描述的文书人员的自费政策和做法。结果:尽管公共机构,营利性机构和非营利性机构使用不同的策略来管理自付费用,但贫困患者报告的经历也存在共同点。该公共机构为最大比例的自费患者提供了最广泛的访问渠道,但通过最成功的预付款和收款方式抵消了负担。营利性网站遵守联邦法规,要求提供紧急医疗服务,但严重削减了其他服务,非营利性有限评估(但不涉及营利性)并进行了收费(但不涉及公众范围) )。在所有场所,文书人员的实际做法通常与机构的书面自付政策背道而驰。一线人员根据具体情况行使相当的酌处权,由于无法支付而被拒收的可能性在0%至40%之间。结论:大型机构提供者通过限制访问和优化预付款和收款策略来平衡其特殊的社会和法律义务。规定的政策通常不会反映人员的做法。未投保的患者被迫浏览一个反复无常的系统,该系统将其作为责任而不是合法客户来管理。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号